My favorite extended quote from Demons:

“Having devoted my energy to studying the question of the social organization of the future society which is to replace the present one, I have come to the conclusion that all creators of social systems from ancient times to our year have been dreamers, tale-tellers, fools who contradicted themselves and understood precisely nothing of natural science or of that strange animal known as man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, aluminum columns—this is fit perhaps for sparrows, but not for human society. But since the future social form is necessary precisely now, when we are finally going to act, so as to stop any further thinking about it, I am suggesting my own system of world organization. Here it is! I wanted to explain my book to the gathering in the briefest possible way; but I see that I will have to add a great deal of verbal clarification, and therefore the whole explanation will take at least ten evenings, according to the number of chapters in my book. Besides that, I announce ahead of time that my system is not finished. I got entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my solution of the social formula, there can be no other.”

Demons


It is the most powerful novel by Dostoevsky. It is more profound than schematical “Crime and Punishment” and much less preaching than “Karamazovs Brothers”, though the later one is building upon the “Demons”. It is the only big novel by him which contains a strong political element along with the traditional psychology and his religious thinking. Some of the main protagonists are revolutionary terrorists. The similar people would kill the Russian reformist tsar Alexander II just a few years after the novel was finished. Among other things, Dostoevsky demonstrates, how the pure desire of power could corrupt soul.

I do not have sufficient knowledge of the world’s history, but I think the revolutionary sects in Russia of the second half of the19th century have become the pioneers of using the terror for their purposes in its modern meaning of the word. Anna Geifman, the American scholar, in her book "Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia" shows a lot of similarities between the Russian terrorists and nowadays’ terrorists:

“Converting concrete grievance into messianic aspirations and practical purposes into holy causes, they operate within distinctive parameters of a theology of Armageddon a final battle between good and evil in which at stake in no less than universal salvation.”

It is a very modern novel in many other ways. The methods those terrorists (on the radical left) use could be a primer for the radical right who supported Trump in the recent elections: fake news; making everyone confused and disoriented; spread rumours as true facts and play on liberals’ impotency in certain issues; marginalising and discrediting the authority - all these "tools" are described in the book. I was shocked to find so many analogies with our time.

However, the main purpose of the novel (imho) to show what a spiritual emptiness can do to a human nature. How unresolved individual existential crisis and the search for completeness might lead to a disaster. For those who read the novel for the first time, it is an imperative to read the chapter “At Tikhon’s” after the end of the part ii of the novel. Currently, they publish it as an Appendix. It was censored out by the Russian authorities at that time on the basis of its “unbearable realism”. It is a shocking and revelatory chapter summarising the essence of the novel. And it is impossible to understand and appreciate the novel with leaving the reading of this chapter to the end.

In spite of all the bleakness, it is a very funny novel. I’ve read it for the first time when I was 17. And then it was shocking and tragic. When I’ve read it now, it has come across more like a farce. Generally, one needs to read Dostoyesky novels during the one’s teens, while you ask all those big questions about the meaning of life and look for the answers…. I think that is why Nabokov was quite cold about Dostoevsky: according to him, Dostoyevsky is not an artist.. May well be, I personally do not totally share his religious and historiographic views. But his work creates a huge impact on a different level - it is not about language, it is about daring to go deep into the darker side of human nature and coming back from there constantly balancing…

I finish with the quote from the article by Rowan Williams: “What makes it (the Demons) so well worth reading now is its unsparing vision of what destructive forces come into the world when there is a vacuum of spiritual understanding. “

По-русски

Известное высказывание, что история первый раз происходит как трагедия и повторяется второй раз как фарс. Так и для меня второе прочтение этого романа. Первый раз почти в детстве меня шокировали и трогали трагические аспекты. Сейчас - все более хаос и фарс. Жаль, что этот роман скорее всего в современной России может быть использован властью для маргинализации любой оппозиции и защиты статус-скво.

А вообще роман про “меня ужаснула великая праздная сила, ушедшая нарочито в мерзость”. - слова Тихона из опущенной главы.

Бесы = The Possessed = Demons = The Devils, Fyodor Dostoyevsky

The Devils is a novel by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, first published in the journal The Russian Messenger in 1871–2.

It is considered one of the four masterworks written by Dostoyevsky after his return from Siberian exile, along with Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869) and The Brothers Karamazov (1880).

The Devils is a social and political satire, a psychological drama, and large scale tragedy.

After an almost illustrious but prematurely curtailed academic career Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky is residing with the wealthy landowner Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina at her estate, Skvoreshniki, in a provincial Russian town.

Originally employed as a tutor to Stavrogina's son Nikolai Vsevolodovich, Stepan Trofimovich has been there for almost twenty years in an intimate but platonic relationship with his noble patroness.

Stepan Trofimovich also has a son from a previous marriage but he has grown up elsewhere without his father's involvement.

A troubled Varvara Petrovna has just returned from Switzerland where she has been visiting Nikolai Vsevolodovich.

She berates Stepan Trofimovich for his financial irresponsibility, but her main preoccupation is an "intrigue" she encountered in Switzerland concerning her son and his relations with Liza Tushina—the beautiful daughter of her friend Praskovya.

Praskovya and Liza arrive at the town, without Nikolai Vsevolodovich who has gone to Petersburg. According to Praskovya, Varvara Petrovna's young protégé Darya Pavlovna (Dasha), has also somehow become involved with Nikolai Vsevolodovich, but the details are ambiguous.

Varvara Petrovna suddenly conceives the idea of forming an engagement between Stepan Trofimovich and Dasha.

Though dismayed, Stepan Trofimovich accedes to her proposal, which happens to resolve a delicate financial issue for him.

Influenced by gossip, he begins to suspect that he is being married off to cover up "another man's sins" and writes "noble" letters to his fiancée and Nikolai Vsevolodovich.

Matters are further complicated by the arrival of a mysterious "crippled woman", Marya Lebyadkina, to whom Nikolai Vsevolodovich is also rumoured to be connected, although no-one seems to know exactly how.

A hint is given when Varvara Petrovna asks the mentally disturbed Marya, who has approached her outside church, if she is Lebyadkina and she replies that she is not. ...

عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «شیاطین (جن زدگان)»؛ «تسخیر شدگان»؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دهم ماه می سال 1966میلادی

عنوان: تسخیر شدگان؛ نویسنده: فئودور میخائیلوویچ داستایوسکی؛ مترجم: علی اصغر خبره زاده؛ چاپ دوم 1343، در دو جلد، چاپ دیگر تهران، آسیا، سال 1350، در دو جلد؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، نگاه، زرین، 1367، چاپ دیگر تهران، نگاه، 1385، در 997ص؛ چاپ نهم 1386، شابک9643513211؛ چاپ چهاردهم 1392؛ شابک 9789643513214؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 20م

عنوان: شیاطین (جن زدگان)؛ نویسنده: فئودور میخائیلوویچ داستایوسکی؛ مترجم: سروش حبیبی؛ تهران، نیلوفر، 1386، در 1019ص؛ شابک 9789644483349؛ موضوع داستانهای نویسندگان روسیه - سده 20م

موضوع اصلی داستان: یک توطئه سیاسی، در یکی از شهرهاست؛ قهرمانان داستان موجوداتی پست، و بی خیال و از آموزه های بشری، بی بهره، و جن زده، و تسخیر شده هستند؛ آنها زندانی یک قدرت مرموزند، که آنها را، به ارتکاب اعمالی وادار میکند، که لیاقت و سزاواری انجام آن را ندارند؛ انسانهایی که عروسکهای خیمه شب بازی هستند، و به فرمان شیاطین، به جنب و جوش درمیآیند؛ داستان با یک رشته رخدادهای مرموز، که در ظاهر با رویدادهای دیگر ارتباط ندارند، پایان مییابد

روایتگری در این داستان، بر دوش یکی از شخصیت‌های نه چندان شاخص آن است، و آن شخص «آنتوان لاورنتیوویچ» نام دارد، او رفیق گرمابه و گلستان یکی از مهمترین شخصیت‌های این رمان، یعنی «استپان ورخاوینسکی» است؛ راوی داستان، کارمند دولت است، که کوشش میکند تا ماجراهای ناباورانه را، که به تازگی در منطقه شان رخ داده اند، بازگو کند؛ اما دل انگیزی رویدادها در این است، که این راوی نه چندان مهم، در رویدادهای داستان، گاهی تا آنجاست که او از رویدادها، و درونیات شخصیت‌های داستان نیز آگاهی دارد، و به یک «دانای کل» تغییر ماهیت می‌دهد؛ راوی داستان، بیانی هوشیارانه، و دقیق، دارد، ولی در داستان، این تنها همو نیست، که داستان را بازگو می‌کند، و در برخی موارد، به‌ طور کامل، صدای راوی گسسته می‌شود؛ چندصدایی، یعنی وجود آدم‌های وارسته، آگاه، دانا، شجاع، و کسانیکه، می‌توانند باورهای خود را، بیان کنند، این‌ها همان صاحبان صدا هستند؛ صاحبان صدا کسانی نیستند، که صاحب زبان باشند، صاحب صدا یعنی دارنده ی فکر و اندیشه، و صاحب نظر؛ صداها می‌توانند به هم نزدیک، یا از هم دور باشند، این آزاد بودن است، که صدا را می‌آفریند؛ «داستایوسکی»، با آفرینش شخصیت «تروفیموویچ»، خواسته اند تا شخصیت‌های آرمانگرای لیبرال دوران دهه ی 1840میلادی روسیه، همچون «آلکساندر هرتسن»، و «تیموفی گرانفسکی» را، بازسازی کنند، «واروارا پتروونا استاوروگینا»، دیگر شخصیت شاخص رمان، زنی ثروتمند، با نفوذ و ملاک است، که در شهریکه داستان در آن، روایت می‌شود، یعنی «سکورشنیکی» زندگی می‌کند؛ حامی اصلی «استپان تروفیموویچ»، همین خانم هست، که هم وظیفه ی حمایت مالی و معنوی وی را، بر دوش دارد، و هم به اندازه ی کافی، بر ایشان فرمان میراند؛ «واروارا پترووانا»، در واقع در آن شهر، به زنی روشنفکر، و پیشرو، شهره هستند، و در جلسات روشنفکران، حضوری همیشگی دارند؛ آگاهانه، و با سخاوت، و روشن ضمیری «واروارا»، او را وامیدارد، که خود را، حامی بزرگوار هنر، و کارهای خیرخواهانه نشان دهد؛ و پر اثرترین شخصیت این داستان، بدون شک «نیکولای وسوولاویچ استاوروگین» است؛ زیبایی، خوش تیپی، و توانایی، از ویژگی‌های شخصیتی «استاوروگین» است؛ ولی با همه ی اینها، به گفته ی راوی داستان، دافعه ای درون اوست، که مانع همدلی کسان دیگر، با وی می‌شود؛ شخصیت اجتماعی وی عبوس، و بسیار خود رای، نشان می‌دهد، اما همگی شخصیت‌های داستان، شیفته وی هستند؛ از دیگر شخصیتهای داستان «پیوتر استپانوویچ ورخاوینسکی»؛ «ایوان پاوولیچ شاتوف»؛ «الکسی نیلیچ کیریلف»؛ «لیزاوتا نیکولینا توشینا (لیزا)»؛ «داریا پاولوونا»؛ «ماریا تیموفینا لبیادکین»؛ و «سروان لبیادکین» هستند

تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 27/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

داستایفسکی با این کتاب من رو مسحور کرد. هیچ چیز دیگه ای برای گفتن ندارم.

The first sentence of Albert Camus’ Forward to his 1959 play redacted from Dostoyevsky’s novel reads, “The Possessed is one of the four or five works that I rank above all others.”

Acest roman s-ar fi putut la fel de lesne numi "La originile SOCIALISMULUI". Conceptul nu trebuie interpretat însă în sens ideologic (originile sale ar putea fi dibuite chiar în Grecia antică: Pericle, de pildă, chiar de nu își sistematizează crezul, transpune, prin politicile sale, premisele fundamentale ale socialismului), ci strict istoric. Nici dracu' nu știe când a fost înființată prima Internațională. Datele istorice nu interesează, deoarece la început aceasta s-a confundat cu un nucleu compact format din câteva persoane cu o viziune mai "progresistă". Cert este că la 1848, anul care a adus atât de multe schimbări în Europa, existau deja mai multe grupuri care militau pentru "cauza comună".
Așa fiind, la 1872, când Dostoievski publica Demonii, avea toată lumea cunoștință de așa-numitele "grupuri de câte 5", organizate în structură piramidală (ca organizațiile teroriste de azi - a se vedea filmul La battaglia di Algeri, 1966). Rațiunea acestei forme de organizare este lesne de înțeles. Cum dreptului la liberă exprimare abia se contura, militanții "cauzei comune" nu puteau lua megafonul și nu puteau începe să-și susțină ideile. "Acțiunile împotriva ordinii constituționale de azi"... Te băgau la zdup.
Este exact lucrul descris și de Dostoievski în Demonii. Problema, cum am spus, este aceea că socialismul nu este tratat pe filiera ideologică, ci strict istoric. Romanul nu abundă în dezbateri și în monologuri, cum se întâmplă în Frații Karamazov, ci prezintă faptic un grup de internationalisti: unii cu idealuri mărețe, alții mai puțin.
Tocmai de aceea, în roman nu ideile interesează, ci oamenii. Ideile nu pot fi prin ele însele corupte, ci doar oamenii. Oamenii pot fi -da!- corupți de idei, însă o idee nu poate fi coruptă. De aceea Piotr Stepanovici, deși apare cel mai mult în roman, nu este personaj principal. El nu are o drama de conștiință. Personajul principal este Stavroghin, în cazul căruia se poate vorbi de o suferință atipică.

Romanul Demonii nu este un război declarat socialismului (Ce? O susține Tismăneanu!). Desigur, la o privire superficială, se poate afirma/ susține orice. A susține însă că, prin Demonii, Dostoievski s-a dezis de socialism (pe care el însuși îl susținuse în 1848, până la treapta ghilotinei) denotă o judecată superficială. A susține că Dostoievski s-a dezis de socialism înseamnă a susține că romane ca "Oameni sărmani" sau "Amintiri din casa morților" nu au nicio valoare. Ele însă transmit idei. Ideile nu sunt coagulate sub tutela unui concept unic. Dar contează denumirea sau conținutul unui crez?!

Lucrul pe care Dostoievski îl face în Demonii e să condamne așa-numiții capi ai socialismului (Piotr Stepanovici, în cazul nostru), care denaturează de o așa manieră substanța vitalializantă a acestui concept, pentru satisfacerea propriilor interese, încât din el nu mai rămâne nimic. Sau, altfel spus: rămâne, pentru posteritate, imaginea unei politici rele. Adică? A se vedea Rusia, anul 1917. Susținerea mea -poate prea energică- își are fundamentele printre rândurile romanului. Pasajul din Evanghelia lui Luca e frecvent citat în roman (de altfel, motto-ul romanului este reprezentat de asta): VIII, 32-36.

32.tŞi era acolo o turmă mare de porci, care păşteau pe munte. Şi L-au rugat să le îngăduie să intre în ei; şi le-a îngăduit.
33.tŞi, ieşind demonii din om, au intrat în porci, iar turma s-a aruncat de pe ţărm în lac şi s-a înecat.
34.tIar păzitorii văzând ce s-a întâmplat, au fugit şi au vestit în cetate şi prin sate.
35.tŞi au ieşit să vadă ce s-a întâmplat şi au venit la Iisus şi au găsit pe omul din care ieşiseră demonii, îmbrăcat şi întreg la minte, şezând jos, la picioarele lui Iisus şi s-au înfricoşat.
36.tŞi cei ce văzuseră le-au spus cum a fost izbăvit demonizatul.

De altfel, nu se poate susține că Dostoievski a scris romanul ca pe o confesiune, el fiind cel "vindecat de demoni", deoarece, pe patul de moarte, Stepan Trofimovici citează din biblie cu privire la fiul sau (care nu a fost "izbăvit"), respectiv cu privire la Piotr Stepanovici.
Această este, de altfel, și sorgintea titlului.

Despre Kirillov nu spun nimic, căci aș știrbi din savoarea romanului. Merită să citești 800 de pagini doar pentru acest personaj.
Despre sărmanul Stavroghin... of! Mi s-a părut însă cel mai demn personaj din roman. Deși neagă nihilismul în față "ultimei spovedanii", viața lui nu a fost, de fapt, decât un nihilism bolnav. Chiar și "apucăturile" sale își aveau pornirea în credința în nimic. De altfel, Stavroghin ar fi un personaj ideal de analizat într-un studiu cu tema de genul: Plictiseala de azi, nihilismul de ieri (cred că sunt numeroase similitudini).

Notă: subsemnatul e socialist. Cititorul trebuie să fie sceptic.


"Ateul desăvârșit ocupă penultima treaptă care precedă credinței desăvârșite (că va face sau nu acest ultim pas, asta este o altă chestiune): indiferentul, dimpotrivă, nu are nici o credință, ci numai o teamă rea din când în când, și dacă este un om sensibil".

"Omul nu a făcut altceva decât să-și născocească un Dumnezeu, pentru a putea trăi fără să se ucidă; în această constă întreagă istorie universală de până acum. Sunt primul în întreagă istorie universală care n-am vrut să-mi născocesc un dumnezeu. Să se afle acest lucru o dată pentru totdeauna" - Kirillov.

10+
26 februarie 2018.

”’My friends,’ he announced, ‘God is necessary to me because he is the only being who is capable of eternal love...My immortality is necessary if only because God would not want to commit an injustice and utterly quench the flame of love for him once it has been kindled in my heart. And what is more precious than love? Love is higher than existence, love is the crown of being, and how is it possible that existence is not subordinate to it? If I have come to love him and have taken joy in my love, is it possible that he should extinguish both me and my joy and turn us into nothing? If God exists, than I am immortal too!...Oh, I would very much like to live again! Every minute, every instant of life ought to be a blessing to man...The entire law of human existence consists merely in the fact that man has always been able to bow down before something immeasurably great. If people are deprived of what is immeasurably great, they will cease to live and will die in despair.’”

Let me ask you something: is there anything more important than freedom? Is anything to be valued more highly than one’s personal autonomy, one’s ability to choose how one lives with complete liberty? Is it possible to have too much freedom?

Here in the West, Freedom of Choice has become our god, and we shall have no other gods before it. To this god we sacrifice our notions of the numinous and transcendent, our continuity with the past, our sense of obligation to those around us and those still to come; and perhaps, ultimately, our very selves. What was conceived in the seventeenth century as the freedom to pursue the Good in one’s own way has now become freedom for freedom’s sake. The existentialists said that man has existence before he has essence; now one might say that man has freedom even before he has existence.

Symptomatic of this is the emergence in our own time of “Wrongful Life” litigation. In some jurisdictions in Europe and the United States, children born with severe disabilities may actually sue their parents for failing to prevent their birth. “You acted irresponsibly,” these children might say, “when you brought me into a life of hardship and suffering without my consent.”

But of course, severely disabled children aren’t the only ones who could legitimately say that. Though their suffering may be greater in degree and duration in some instances, it is impossible for anyone to live without some measure of suffering, because suffering, grief, pain, and loss are embedded within life itself. According to tradition, when an Aztec child was born, the midwife would dunk the wailing infant in cold water and declare, “you have come to suffer. Suffer and endure.” Underneath the superficial freedoms in which we take so much pride—freedom to dress how we want, say what we want, choose where to live, what to do for a living, or who to vote for—there lies a far more profound unfreedom: that of existence itself. None of us chose to be born. We were all thrown into this thing without the foggiest idea of what we were in for, and now we’re left to find our bearings and figure out, as best we can, what this mystery is really about. We strive to gain some level of mastery over our lives; we gather up power, wealth, strength, and knowledge, all for this purpose. But the mere fact of our existence, the fact that we are, serves as an eternal reminder of our fundamental powerlessness; a powerlessness that lies at the bottom of all of our strivings.

Why am I telling you this? Because that’s what I think this book is about: the ultimately tautological relationship between freedom and nihilism. The revolutionary cabal which gathers in our nameless Russian town is in rebellion against every inherited notion: religion, monarchy, the military establishment, order, traditional morality, conscience, and even the very distinction between good and evil. They want absolute freedom; total liberation of the ego from everything outside of itself. Consistent with their premises, the leaders of this sect—the mad demagogue Pyotr Verkhovensky, the anarchic prince Nikolai Stavrogin, and the anti-philosopher Kirillov (who is probably the truest nihilist of them all, because he insists that he has no obligation even to the group)--believe in nothing, and want nothing; except, perhaps, to lash out futilely against life, the universe, and everything that is. Like Milton’s Satan, they rebel against the source of their own being, for the purpose of destroying purpose, in a mad gambit to assert their nothingness and become gods of a godless cosmos. Kirillov sees what no one else in the novel does, except perhaps for his three antipodes, Tikhon, Shatov, and Stepan Trofimovich: the only free act is suicide. In an unfree existence, the only means of self-assertion is self-slaughter.

Dostoyevsky wrote this book out of despair. It is a work of prophecy, a jeremiad for the fatalistic logic he saw working itself out in Czarist Russia, and which continues to work itself out in our own time. We have charted our course by the sacred years of liberal revolution: 1689, 1776, 1789, 1848, 1861, 1968(?). Yet whatever their merits, each of these movements has carried a kernel of nihilism.

Autonomy for the landowning class in America meant the freedom to renew the conquest and displacement of indigenous peoples. Embedded within the Jacobin fervor of revolutionary France were the September Massacres of 1792 and the Reign of Terror after 1793. The student rebellions and racial activism of the 1960s and 70s in the United States bore their bitterest fruit in the titanic stupidities of Bill Ayers and Assata Shakur. The Arab Spring collapsed in some regions into the apocalyptic death-worship of ISIS. I could go on; but note that I don’t include here the Communist revolutions of the twentieth century, because they turned out not to be liberal revolutions at all; their nihilistic excess overcame their initial idealism.

Were these aberrations within the larger movements of which they were a part, or simply the most radically consistent manifestations of them? Dostoyevsky tends towards the latter view; in his novel, the sophisticated Francophile liberalism of the 1840s, embodied by Stepan Trofimovich, literally begets the nihilistic insanity of Pyotr Stepanovich. Outrageously, certain left-wing intellectuals continue to apologize for the reigns of Castro, Guevara, Hugo Chavez, and the like (defending the likes of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot is now too embarrassing even for them, although it wasn’t 40 years ago). Shortly after Fidel Castro’s death, Tariq Ali was interviewed by the BBC. When presented with a list of Castro’s crimes, he pithily replied that “mistakes were made.”

Dostoyevsky would say, “not so fast”. Psychologically speaking, the “mistakes” weren’t really mistakes at all. On the contrary, the atrocities were more consistent with the revolutionary impulse, which has more to do with the perverse human fascination with destruction, malice, and ingratitude than it does with any ostensible political grievance.

When Pyotr Stepanovich clings to the left arm of Nikolai Vsevolodovich and promises to make him king of a ruined world, if only the latter consents to his program, this is not a debate over political methodology; this is Satan tempting Christ in the desert, and Mara tempting Gautama Buddha under the Bodhi tree. It is the battle within the soul, between a life-denying love of self and a self-denying love of God, upon which the fate of the world ultimately depends. The space in which humanity is to survive lies somewhere between these poles. As Stepan Trofimovich suggests, the only resolution of this ontological dilemma lies in Love, which is the true name of God; love of God, and love of God in oneself, the submission that makes us free.

الشياطين
فيودور دوستويفسكي

من بين علاقات معقدة، أفكار متناقضة ونفوس معذبة، تطل علينا شياطين دوستويفسكي.

علاقات شائكة
في عالم دوستو ليس من السهل معرفة العدو من الصديق، والرفيق من الحبيب. يمتزج الحب مع الكره والحقد مع التسامح والنفور مع القبول. لدينا المُعلم الذي يظن أن راعيته واقعة في غرامه، والفتى الوسيم الذي ارتبط بمُعاقة، الابن الذي يستقصد إهانة والده، والأخ الذي يعنف أخته التي تتكفل بمعيشته. باختصار: لا شيء واضح. لا شك أن القارئ سيقع في حبائل أوهام الشخصيات، وسيحاول استقراء الأحداث لاستخلاص حقيقة تلك العلاقات. احتلت العلاقات الغرامية من الرواية مساحة أكبر مما كنت أود. فأنا لا أقرأ دوستو من أجل هذا.

مذاهب وعقائد
في هذا المسرح المضطرب، تتمازج الأفكار وتتنافر. فمن عبثي إلى كلاسيكي ومن مؤمن إلى ملحد حتى نصل إلى من يؤمن أن الانتحار سيؤدي به إلى الحرية المطلقة. كما أن هناك صراع واضح بين جيلي الآباء والأبناء. الأفكار محمومة، طرحها متسارع متداخل. في بعض المواضع كانت ممتعة، غير أنها كانت على الأغلب مبعثرة. افتقدتُ الحوارات الفكرية التي لمستني بعمق في روايات دوستو خاصة وفي الأدب الروسي عامة.

أرواح معذبة
لا توجد شخصية واحدة تقضي وقتاً ممتعاً في هذا النص. لكل نفس ما يحرقها من الشكوك وما يحزها من الآلام والخيبات. معظمها يتعرض للحسد ويقع في الدسائس. كعادة كتابات دوستو، ستحرمك براعته في رسم الشخصيات من أن تحبها حباً نقياً أو أن تبغضها حتى النخاع. ستخرج من أغلب الشخصيات بخليط لا يصدق من المشاعر: ازدراء مع تفهم وإعجاب مع شفقة. شيء لا يمكن وصفه.

محوران رئيسيان
الجزء الأول من الرواية مُكرس لتصوير حياة الشخصيات وتفاعلها مع بعضه البعض. صلات القرابة والصداقة متشابكة بشكل مقنع ولم يسبب لي أي نوع من التشويش. استغرب أيضاً أنني لم أواجه صعوبة في تمييز أسماء الشخصيات على طول الرواية. ما أرهقني هو ما ذكرت سابقاً من قصص العشق المسموم والمكتوم والمشبوه. كنت في انتظار الجدالات الفكرية والأحداث الكبرى أن تحدث. ثم جاء القسم الثاني وفيه نعيش أجواء الخلافات الحزبية والصراع على مراكز القوى. تتجلى عبقرية شخصية بيوتر فرخوفنسكي في خضم هذه المعمعة، بسخريته المبطنة، تعاطفه الزائف واحتقاره العارم للجميع. كان هذا الجزء أكثر امتاعاً من الجزء الأكبر الذي سبقه، لكنني كنت أطمع في المزيد على مستوى الحوارات الفكرية.

تحصل هذه الرواية على أدنى تقييم من بين أعمال دوستويفسكي التي قرأتها حتى الآن، مع أنني اخترت أحسن نسخة متوفرة وتخيرت لها أفضل الأوقات، لكن النتائج ليست دائماً مضمونة في عالم الكتب.

Un romanzo complesso, impegnativo, anche pesante a tratti, ma Dostoevskij – come sempre – pur raccontando una storia particolare, con personaggi delineati nitidamente, riesce a parlare di qualcosa di universale, che riguarda l’umanità tutta e ogni uomo, qualcosa che riguarda me.

Albert Camus, che per vent’anni ha lavorato ad una riduzione teatrale di questo romanzo, dice:
“I demoni è un romanzo profetico non solo perché annuncia il nostro nichilismo, ma anche perché mette in scena anime dilaniate o morenti, incapaci d’amare e sofferenti di non poterlo fare, che vogliono e non possono credere, che sono le stesse che popolano oggi la nostra società e il nostro universo spirituale”.

সব ফ্যান্টাসি লেখকের দস্তয়েভস্কি পড়া উচিত।


লেখায়, বর্ণনায় যেভাবে একটা সম্পূর্ণ জগৎ ফুটিয়ে তুলতে হয়, সে বিষয়ে দস্তয়েভস্কির মতো সিদ্ধহস্ত লেখক খুব কমই দেখেছি। তবে তার বর্ণনা শুধু বিল্ডিং-এ কোন রঙের সিমেন্ট ব্যবহার করা হয়েছে বা হ্রদের জল কালো, এমন বৈশিষ্ট্যে থেমে থাকে না। একটা উদাহরণ দিই। এই বইটার (বইটা ইংরেজিতে বিভিন্ন নামে পরিচিত। সবথেকে কমন নামগুলো হচ্ছে ডিমনস, দ্য ডেভিলস আর দ্য পজেসড) একজন অন্যতম প্রধান চরিত্রের নাম স্তেপান ত্রোফিমোভিচ। শেষের দিকের এক অধ্যায়ে সে বাড়ি ছেড়ে বেরিয়ে পড়ে। কোথায় যাচ্ছে জানে না। একটু একটু বৃষ্টি হচ্ছে। ইলশেগুঁড়ি বৃষ্টি, থামছে, আবার ঝরছে। স্তেপান ত্রোফিমোভিচ আত্মভোলা মানুষ, পাগলের মতো হাঁটতে হাঁটতে হঠাৎ সে খেয়াল করে অনেকদূর চলে এসেছে। সেকেলে, কালো এক রাস্তায় দাঁড়িয়ে আছে। ঘোড়ায় টানা গাড়ির চাকার দাগ গভীর হয়ে কেটে বসেছে সেই রাস্তায়। পথের দুইপাশে সারি দিয়ে উইলো গাছ। নাটাই-মুক্ত সুতোর মতো সেই রাস্তা প্যাঁচ খেয়ে চলে গেছে বহুদূর। দূর, দূর দিগন্তে দেখা যাচ্ছে কোনো রেলগাড়ির ধোঁয়া, কিন্তু সেটার শব্দ কানে আসছে না।

স্তেপান ত্রোফিমোভিচ হচ্ছে যাকে বলে লুতুপুতু পুরুষ। অক্ষম ইন্টেলেকচুয়াল। সারাজীবন বইয়ে নাক ডুবিয়ে আর ‘আমাদের এই দেশ, আমাদের এই সমাজ উচ্ছন্নে যাচ্ছে’ টাইপের বড়ো বড়ো কথা বলে কাটিয়েছে। কিন্তু সমাজ বদলানোর চেষ্টা করতে গিয়ে সামান্য ব্যর্থতার সামনে পড়েই পালিয়ে এসেছে। মফস্বলে এসে আশ্রয় নিয়েছে তার বিশাল ধনী বান্ধবীর বাসায়। সেখানে তাকে একধরনের রক্ষিত হিসেবে রাখা হয়েছিলো। যে অধ্যায়ের কথা বললাম ওপরে, সেটা এমন এক সময়ের বর্ণনা যখন স্তেপান ত্রোফিমোভিচ সেই বাসা ছেড়ে বেরিয়ে গিয়েছে। জীবনে প্রথমবারের মতো রাশিয়ার গ্রাম্য পরিবেশের মুখোমুখি হয়েছে। এই জগত তার সম্পূর্ণ অচেনা। সে হারিয়ে গিয়েছে, মানসিক এবং আক্ষরিক দুই অর্থেই।

এই যে অচেনা জগতের সামনে আসার অনুভূতিটা, সেটা বোঝানোর জন্য ওপরের রাস্তার বর্ণনার চেয়ে নিখুঁত আর কী হতে পারে? যে নাগরিক, ‘সভ্য’ জীবনকে স্তেপান ত্রোফিমোভিচ চেনে, সেটার চিহ্ন দেখা যায় যান্ত্রিক রেলগাড়িতে। কিন্তু সেটা বহু দূরে, তার নাগালের বাইরে। যে পথে সে দাঁড়িয়ে আছে সেটা শংকার মতো অন্ধকার, উৎকণ্ঠার মতো প্যাঁচানো। এমনকী প্রকৃতিও যেন এই আবেগে সাড়া দিচ্ছে, আনপ্রেডিকটেবল হয়ে গেছে। বৃষ্টি কখন আবার আসবে, আবার থামবে—কিছুই বলা যাচ্ছে না।

এবার ফ্যান্টাসি ওয়ার্ল্ড বিল্ডিং-এর কথায় ফিরে আসি। ফ্যান্টাসি হচ্ছে এমন একটা জনরা যেখানে আমাদের কল্পনার জগত শুধু মাথার ভেতরে থাকে না, একটা আস্ত বিশ্ব হয়ে আমাদেরকে ঘিরে ঘরে। যা ইন্টারনাল, তা ফ্যান্টাসিতে এসে এক্সটারনাল হয়ে যায়। এখানে আগ্নেয়গিরি হয়ে ওঠে নরকের দরজা, সাহস নামের অনুভূতি একজন নায়কের রূপ নেয়, নিয়তি নামের শক্তি দেখা দেয় প্রফেসি আর অভিশাপ হয়ে। তাই ফ্যান্টাসিতে যখন একটা রাজ্য দেখানো হবে, একটা ড্রাগন দেখানো হবে, একটা তরবারি দেখানো হবে, তখন শুধু সেগুলো দেখতে কেমন সেটার বর্ণনা যথেষ্ট নয়। কারণ প্রত্যেকটা জিনিস কোনো না কোনো মানবিক আবেগের সাথে জড়িত। রাজ্যটা যদি মরডর হয়, তাহলে সেটার আকাশ দূষিত মেঘে ঢাকা হতে হবে, মাঝে মাঝে আগুনের ফুলকি দেখা যেতে হবে, গাছপালার বদলে থাকবে শুধু রুক্ষ পাথর—যুদ্ধপ্রেমী, উন্মত্ত ইন্ডাস্ট্রিয়ালিস্ট কোনো দেশের কথা ভাবলে যেমন ছ���ি আমাদের মনে ভেসে ওঠে। ড্রাগন হতে পারে কোনো বিধ্বংসী, ভয়াল অস্ত্র বা মবি ডিকের মতো প্রকৃতির অদম্য শক্তি। তরবারি হবে বিপদের বিরুদ্ধে আমাদের সাহসের আগুন, যেটা বিপদের সম্ভাবনা দেখলে জ্বলে উঠে।

দস্তয়েভস্কির উপন্যাসে এ ধরনের ওয়ার্ল্ড বিল্ডিং-এর প্রচুর উদাহরণ আছে। আর আছে জীবন্ত মানুষের মতো জটিল আর গভীর চরিত্র। এই বইয়ের প্রধান চরিত্রেরা প্রায় প্রত্যেকে স্মরণীয়। বিশেষ করে স্তাভ্রোগিন আর কিরিলভকে আমার ইন্টারেস্টিং লেগেছে। কিরিলভ, যে অস্তিত্ববাদের জন্মের আগে অস্তিত্ববাদী ছিলো। কাম্যুর বেশ পছন্দের চরিত্র। স্তাভ্রোগিন, যে সাহিত্যের সেই অসাধারণ বিপজ্জনক চরিত্রদের একজন যাদেরকে আরও কাছ থেকে জানতে ইচ্ছে করে কারণ সে সবাইকে দূরে সরিয়ে রাখে। যদিও শাতভ নামের একজন চরিত্র আছে, যাকে লেখক যতোটা পছন্দ করেছেন আমার ততোটা ভালো লাগেনি। পুরো বইজুড়ে দস্তয়েভস্কি হামবড়া বুদ্ধিজীবী, অকর্মা, আউট-অফ-টাচ ধনী গোষ্ঠী আর বিভিন্ন আদর্শবাদীদের নিয়ে ভয়ংকর, নির্মম স্যাটায়ার করেছেন। এই শ্রেণির মানুষদের তিনি জীবদ্দশায় খুব কাছ থেকে দেখার সুযোগ পেয়েছিলেন।

এই বইয়ের যে মূল প্রতিপাদ্য, সেটাও আমার ভালো লাগেনি। বর্তমানে যে কয়েকটা বই পড়ছি, সেগুলোর মধ্যে একটা হচ্ছে পামুকের ইস্তানবুল। সেখানে তিনি দস্তয়েভস্কিকে ‘ওয়েস্ট-হেটিং স্লাভ’ (বা এ জাতীয় কিছু) বলে গালি দিয়েছেন। বা হয়তো শ্রদ্ধাভরে বলেছেন। পামুকের মাত্র তিনটা বই পড়েছি, তার ব্যাপারে যথেষ্ট জানি না। তবে হয়তো ডিমনস পড়ার পর পামুকের এই ধারণা হয়েছিলো। যাই হোক, দস্তয়েভস্কির রাজনৈতিক বা ধার্মিক কোনো বিশ্বাসের সাথেই আমি একমত নই, তাও তিনি আমার সবথেকে পছন্দের সাহিত্যিকদের একজন। ডিমনস বইটা পড়ে সেই মতে কোনো পরিবর্তন আসেনি।

Come si può commentare un libro di una complessità tale come I demòni?
La critica letteraria dell’ultimo secolo ha scritto una mole di opere sulla figura del grande scrittore e sui suoi scritti.
In qualità di semplice lettrice, mi limito a parlare dei momenti più alti, nella loro tragicità, del libro, momenti che raffigurano, ai miei occhi, la grandezza e il genio di Dostoevskij. Meriterebbe di essere letto solo per queste pagine. Essi sono rappresentati dalle due lettere scritte da Nikolaj Stavrogin, il protagonista assoluto delle vicende narrate, il demòne. Come scrivono i critici, Dostoevskij indaga “l’uomo del sottosuolo”, cattivo, crudele, perverso, irragionevole, mettendo a nudo gli istinti, i desideri, le perversioni, la corruzione. Ebbene, nelle lettere rivedo tutto quanto ciò.
La prima è la confessione di Stavrogin, il documento che lui mostra al vescovo Tichon, in cui confessa –verbo da interpretare non nel significato cattolico di confessione unita a pentimento- i suoi misfatti.
La seconda è la lettera che Nikolaj Stavrogin scrive a Dar’ja Pavlovna, per chiederle di assisterlo come “infermiera” laddove si è rifugiato.
Secondo me, in queste due lettere ci sono la complessità e la profondità dell’animo umano scandagliate, vivisezionate e analizzate al microscopio, in tutto le loro vertiginose disarmonie.
Dostoevskij è ossessionato dalla presenza del male nell’uomo: ebbene, in Stavrogin l’aspetto demoniaco e maligno emerge in tutta la sua tragica grandezza nelle forme della depravazione, abiezione, crudeltà ed infine della dissoluzione e annientamento della personalità che il male provoca nell’animo umano, fino a giungere alla morte, come sigillo del nulla.
E al termine della lettura la domanda che mi pongo è: ma come fa Dostoevskij a conoscere così a fondo l’animo umano?
A un libro come questo le quattro stelle vanno date “d’ufficio”, indipendentemente dai gusti personali che portano a sentire maggiori affinità con un autore piuttosto che con un altro.
La critica paragona Tolstoi ad Omero, romanziere epico, e Dostoevskij ad Eschilo ed Euripide, grandi tragici, con la differenza che i tre greci sono vissuti in periodi diversi, mentre Tolstoi e Dostoevskij sono contemporanei e rappresentano una medesima cultura.
Personalmente mi sento più vicina a Tolstoi, alla narrazione corale e magniloquente di guerra e pace, alla fine analisi introspettiva svolta in Anna Karenina; ma non è possibile parlare di superiorità dell’uno rispetto all’altro, ma solo di complementarietà e di differenze.
E allora, accostando Dostoevskij al tragediografo ateniese come fanno i critici, ripenso ai suoi versi che possono essere avvicinati al pensiero del grande scrittore russo:”L’esistere del mondo è uno stupore infinito, ma nulla è più dell’uomo stupendo. Anche di là dal grigio mare, tra i venti tempestosi, quando s’apre a lui sul capo l’onda alta di strepiti, l’uomo passa; … fornito oltre misura di sapere, d’ingegno e d’arte, ora si volge al male, ora al bene…Ma se il male abita in lui superbo, senza patria e misero vivrà; ignoto allora sia costui alla mia casa e al mio pensiero”.

.
.داستایفسکی گوشهٔ کتابخانه‌ام جا خوش کرده تا وقت و بی وقت به نامِ لذت بی‌نهایت از ادبیات و فلسفه، چند روزی مهمان قلم شگفت‌انگیز او باشم.
بدون لو رفتن نقطهٔ عطفی در داستان، سخت است تا حرفی از کتاب به میان آورم. پس از پیشگفتارِ داستایفسکی درباره ستپان ترافیموویچ در چاله حوادث و جهان‌بینی ناب نویسنده اسیر می‌شویم.
داستایفسکی در هیاهوی نهیلیسمی که محصول خردگرایی مطلق عصر اوست، در همهمه و فریادِ «خدا مرده است»، از بازگشت ارزش‌های متافیزیکی، لزوم ایمانِ معنوی و دست‌آویزی فراانسانی می‌گوید. او هزار صفحه دست و پا می‌زند تا خدای مرده را احیا کند.
ستاوروگین پرسش برانگیزترین شخصیت میان مردانِ ساخته و پرداخته اوست. شخصیتی که در صف مقابلِ ساده‌لوحی و حماقت پرنس میشکین ایستاده است. او اَبرمرد نیچه یا بهتر بگویم نمودی از «انسان سادی» است؛ انسانی که از منظر مارکی دوساد، خدا را از عرش کبریا به زیر کشید و خود بر مقام او تکیه زده است. ستاوروگین در جدال خیر و شر، در کمال بی‌تفاوتی در نقطه صفر مرزی ایستاده، قباحت از شر می‌زداید و نجابتِ خیر را لگدمال می‌گند. او جلوه‌ای از نهایتِ قدرت بشری است؛ کسی که نه خدا، بلکه خودِ شیطان است.
ستاوروگین پرستیده می‌شود، مجذوب می‌کند، ستایش بر می‌انگیزد و قربانی می‌گیرد؛ اما پریشان است و نمی‌داند این قدرت خداگونه را چگونه به‌کار گیرد.
او اگرچه افسار روح خود را به شیطان سپرده است، اما هنوز در کالبدی انسانی جای دارد و از عذاب حمله‌های «وجدان» خلاصی ندارد.
 سیلیِ شاتوف به ستاوروگین، سیلیِ آب نکشیده‌ای بود که داستایفسکی زیر گوشِ این پوچ‌گرایی محض می‌نوازد و آن را جز سقوط، آشوبی خبیثانه و جذام خطرناکی افتاده به جان انسانیت نمی‌بیند. او شاهکاری آفرید که امروز نیز پیشگوی زمانه اوست.
در زیرساخت‌های سیاسی و اجتماعی رمان، انقلاب سوسیالیستی در جامعهٔ دهقانی روسیه، کمدی نافرجامی معرفی می‌شود که حاصلی جز آشوب ندارد. او سرانجامِ انقلاب اکتبر و ظهور استالین را در قالب شخصیت شیگالیوف پیش‌بینی می‌کند.
ستپان تیرافیموویچ در نقش روشنفکری که تخم لق الحاد را در دهان نسل بعد از خود، ستاوروگین و پیوتر، کاشته است در نهایت به میل نویسنده لب به اعتراف و توبه می‌گشاید.
داستایفسکی شیاطین را در پاسخ به زمزمه‌های نهیلیسمِ جان گرفته در نبض جریان‌های روشنفکری و در پی آن، تحرکات انقلابیون سوسیالیست جامعه خود نوشت. برای انذار به ظهور سوسیالیسم در جامعه‌ای که منافع کارگر بازیچه دست مردان جاه‌طلبی چون پیوتر تیرافیموویچ شود. که شد...
ستپان تیرافیموویچ، کیریلف، شاتوف، لیزا، ماریا تیموفی یونا، لیپوتین، لبیادکین، داریا، فیدکا و واروارا پترونا هرکدام مهره‌های خاکستریِ شطرنج داستایفسکی و در عین حال همگی بخشی از خود او هستند.
داستایفسکی دغدغه‌ای جز انسانیت ندارد، و به گمانم کیریلفِ از گور برخاسته، شبیه‌ترین شخصیت به اوست .در متن تراژدی هولناک شیاطین، او انجیل دیگری می‌آفریند و اثبات فرض وجود یا عدم وجود خدا را به وجدان بشریت واگذار می‌کند.
جامعه‌ بی‌خدا، خوب و بد را به نفسانیت انسان واگذار می‌کند و «وجود را بر عشق برتری می‌دهد». انسانی که بعید نیست در پس رخت و صورتکی دلربا، به شیطانی سراسر سیاهی مبدل شود.